The Conference Committee for the 2002 Farm Bill

Answers to Some Concerns Expressed About 

The Farmland Stewardship Program
Sec. 256, HR 2646

Several concerns were raised by Senate negotiators about the Farmland Stewardship Program contained in Sec. 256 of the House-passed Farm Bill (H.R. 2646). 

These include--

• Concerns about the impact of the "waiver" language contained in Sec. 256 of H.R. 2646.

• Concerns about the exclusion of several key USDA conservation programs -- especially EQIP -- from the list of "included programs" in the House farm bill language.

• Concerns that the Farmland Stewardship Program will draw money away from other conservation programs.

• Concerns about how the program will fit with the Conservation Security Program (Sec. 201, of the Senate Farm Bill, H.R. 2646-EAS).

• Concerns that the program is untried.

All of these concerns were raised and addressed in August 2001 when a group of more than 30 people provided input to develop expanded language for the Farmland Stewardship Program, that was subsequently introduced in the U.S. Senate in November 2001 as Sec. 256 of S. 1673, the Lincoln-Hutchinson bill.

The individuals providing input to these discussions represented farm organizations, commodities, conservation, environmental advocacy, sportsmen and state agency associations.

This language is now being used as the basis for replacement language for Sec. 256, in H.R. 2646, in the conference committee farm bill.  In the new language:

• All references to the term "waiver" have been removed, and specific language has been added to describe the steps that must be taken for an exception to be granted in an existing program so that it can be modified to do a better job of addressing local conditions, without changing the overall intent, purpose or restrictions associated with the existing program.

• All programs, from all agencies at all levels of government, and from the private sector now can be combined into the Farmland Stewardship Program.

• A more explicit explanation of the program has been added to emphasize that the Farmland Stewardship Program DOES NOT TAKE MONEY AWAY from other conservation programs.  Instead, it is designed specifically to use the money dedicated to these programs to implement the programs in a more efficient, effective way, by ensuring that each program can address the conservation needs and opportunities represented by individual parcels of property, and complementary programs can be combined together to carry out a much wider range of conservation objectives on enrolled properties.

A report released at the end of March by the General Accounting Office (GAO), "Agricultural Conservation - State Advisory Committees’ Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns," underscores the importance of the approach that will be taken to private lands conservation by the Farmland Stewardship Program.

The GAO report concludes that all USDA conservation programs provide inadequate technical assistance to producers.  It also criticizes USDA for not making programs broad enough and for not using flexibility to modify programs, so more can be done to better address critical environmental needs at the local level.  The Farmland Stewardship Program was specifically designed to addresses these issues and to provide a means of overcoming them.  (For more details, go to GAO report.)

The Farmland Stewardship Program also has been designed to complement the Conservation Security Program. For a candid assessment, comparing the Farmland Stewardship Program with the Conservation Security Program, go to www.privatelands.org/Brad_Crabtree_email.htm

The Farmland Stewardship Program has been developed through an open, consensus-building process since its inception in 1993.

• Two extensive web sites have been in operation since 1997 explaining the program in great detail (www.privatelands.org) and describing the meetings and workshops that led to the development of the concept (www.fl-panther.com).  Both web sites invite input from visitors and provide email response forms and addresses for visitors to offer their comments.

• Throughout the course of the project, input has been received from more than 500 people from around the U.S., and every federal agency and state association that operates conservation programs.  

• Comments from an extensive series of private landowner forums, held in different regions of the country by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1999, were incorporated into the program (for details, see USDA's Private Land Conservation Forums).

• Comments also have been received from Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. Territories.

Throughout the nine-year history of this project, we have listened to every comment and tried to address every concern.

People familiar with the project have said that anyone with a serious objection already has had ample opportunity to get in touch with us, to express their concern or objection and to have it addressed in the expanded language that was introduced in November 2001 as part of S. 1673 (and which is being used as the basis for the conference bill language). 

The remaining objections have been characterized by people familiar with the project as: 

1) focused on the House language, which is not the language that will be used in conference;

2) based on a lack of knowledge or understanding about the program, due to a failure to take the time to read the most recent language for the program or to visit the web sites where every aspect of the program and its development is explained; 

3) general, free-floating anxiety about a new program; or

4) the "we-don't-like-it-because-we-didn't-think-of-it" variety.  

As one program proponent pointed out, at one time every environmental program, such as the Clean Water Act, was new, and had detractors who were opposed because they weren't sure how it would work.

We've tried to address all of these issues.

Corporate funding has been provided to launch a Farmland Stewardship Council, to bring all interest groups together around the table (and representatives from all affected federal agencies and state organizations representing governors, ag commissioners, fish and game departments, etc.) to help guide implementation of this program and discuss future farm policy.

Consequently, ANYONE who has expressed concerns about ANY ASPECT of this program -- Will it draw money away from existing programs?  How will the exceptions work?  How will it fit with the Conservation Security Program? -- will have an opportunity to be at the table or to provide input to ensure these concerns are addressed as the program is rolled out.

No other program has this feature and no other program can provide this guarantee.  

From its inception, the Farmland Stewardship Program program has been built on a collaborative, consensus-building premise.  We intend to continue in the same vein.

Should you have any questions or concerns about the Farmland Stewardship Program, PLEASE, click here to send an email.

For a list of the benefits of the Farmland Stewardship Program, go to 35 benefits. 

For a list of issues raised by a state conservation officer, go to Why Do We Need This Program?

For the current status of the Farmland Stewardship program, click here.

For further information, please contact: Craig Evans, President, Florida Stewardship Foundation, 621 N.W. 53rd Street, Suite 240, Boca Raton, Florida 33487, Cell phone: 561-289-9690, Email: craig@privatelands.org